I don't blame Vinapola or subscribe to Scottish bias

Just wanted to put this in writing

I do not blame Vinapola or a percieved anti Scottish excuse

I do blame Gatland for being a terrible selector and Gatland for having horrible negative tactics and I blame Gatland for picking favourites regardless of form

He is more and more reminding me of Woodward

Wales have deservedly won the 6 nations and slams in the last few years, but like Woodward, i beleive that is more to you have execptional players across the park, rather than anything Gatland has done

Like Woodward, Gatland has only plan A (Which is big runners running straight into players for more big runners to do it again, with the odd kick it away to add spice) and when that does not work he goes to PLan A (lite) the same plan with his second choice players

He is stubborn and will not select a player, regardless of current form, if he has set his stall out (See Hook, Peel)

He has a set idea of who to select, regardless of form or if they are still injured (Like Woodward) and relies on past reputation (Guess who that is like)

When the squad was announced a vast majority of use groaned that we would play Gatland ball and we would lose - we were shouted down and told to stop being so anti Welsh, but guess what, it has come to pass

We should have lost the first test (they had a 7 in centre and we still looked clueless as we ran and ran into tackles)

We lost the second test as only one team went to play rugby

I hope we win the third test, but unless Gatland tries something new, I fear we will not


IF we lose this series, then I would have to put Gatland in the same boat as Woodwood, or even a lesser one, as this Ozzie team are nothing special and with the right tactics I really feel we could have won 3 - 0


And to reiterate - I rate Vinapola and think he is a fantastic player, and will be a mence in years to come

That's more like it Risky! Agree with your comments here. For me it is not anti-Scottish it's just a rock solid self belief/pig headedness/stubbornness that Gatland has as personality traits. Unfortunately that rock solid belief and conviction is also what make him a relatively successful coach. It does work for him on occasion. If he was a bit more flaky, changing his plans when things aren't going right, buckling to selection pressure, may make him less successful - we'll never know.

You do feel that if Tuilagi had been playing yesterday he would have punched the holes to win the match. The Lions looked weak in attack and in areas they were expected to dominate in pre tour.

As a Wallabies fan I was super super relieved when we won yesterday, because the tactics and accuracy were pretty dreadful, playing right into Lions hands. I think that says a lot about the Lions tactics and selections really. Unable to beat a floundering Wallabies side and not living up to the supposed strengths that the Lions should possess.

Its a big missed chance for the Lions really and selections for that test were pretty controversial pre match, thus they have been a big feature of debate on here post match.

Last week post first test, Gatland said he felt they played better with less ball at times. That seemed to be the train of thought yesterday from both teams for much of the game, until Wallabies woke up and realised it wasn't working, opting to play a more positive brand of rugby.

Riskysports wrote:Wales have deservedly won the 6 nations and slams in the last few years, but like Woodward, i beleive that is more to you have execptional players across the park, rather than anything Gatland has done

Quite a lot of truth in that.

Very good post, worth a reply unlike some of the nonsense written after the test match....no one player is to blame for a loss in what is the epitome of a TEAM game but that TEAM yesterday was a damage limitation, defensive minded selection but for a fine margin it could have worked and we would be 2-0 up, the problem with such a conservative mind set is that it almost always comes down to fine margins.........and in fairness Oz always looked the more threatening outfit and deserved this one to go their way. Our scrum was a lottery, our line out ok but WHY go to the back with only seconds to go?? our midfield was unimaginative and our lines far too predictable, our backrow effective in defense but plodding when compared to the Oz.......luckily we've got a fantastic kicker. Like England of old really, grind em down and kick the penalties....

Riskysports wrote:Just wanted to put this in writing

I do not blame Vinapola or a percieved anti Scottish excuse

I do blame Gatland for being a terrible selector and Gatland for having horrible negative tactics and I blame Gatland for picking favourites regardless of form

So who are the favourites that haven't been on form? i assume you are talking about Welsh players but cannot realy see any out of form favorites that he has played amongst them. I assume Adam Jones, AWJ, Halfpenny and North are not ones you are referring to, although perhaps you do? He has been ruthless with other Welsh players that may have been seen as pre tour favorites to start with Youngs being rightly prefered to Hibbard and both Evans and Falatau, rather less rightly not getting in the match day squad. While he has not hesitated to drop Cuthbert and Phillips when he felt more in form players are available. So that just leaves Warburton who most player ratings give as our best forwrd yesterday, Lydiate, who he he didn't show any favorotism to in the first test and who was brought in to do a job yesterday and did it well, and Davies. I agree that Tuilagi would have been my choice yesterday because Gatland doesn't have an alternative plan to a crash ball 12, however, most commentators felt that before the first test Davies had been the form centre on tour so it is hard to see that picking him in as picking an out of form favorite!

I am totally unhappy about Gatland's lack of a game plan but I think his man management skills are good and generally his team selection, from within his squad, is unbiased and sound. So, I think you are right to annoyed with him but wrong about the picking favorites angle.

Newsilure wrote:

Riskysports wrote:Just wanted to put this in writing

I do not blame Vinapola or a percieved anti Scottish excuse

I do blame Gatland for being a terrible selector and Gatland for having horrible negative tactics and I blame Gatland for picking favourites regardless of form

So who are the favourites that haven't been on form? i assume you are talking about Welsh players but cannot realy see any out of form favorites that he has played amongst them. I assume Adam Jones, AWJ, Halfpenny and North are not ones you are referring to, although perhaps you do? He has been ruthless with other Welsh players that may have been seen as pre tour favorites to start with Youngs being rightly prefered to Hibbard and both Evans and Falatau, rather less rightly not getting in the match day squad. While he has not hesitated to drop Cuthbert and Phillips when he felt more in form players are available. So that just leaves Warburton who most player ratings give as our best forwrd yesterday, Lydiate, who he he didn't show any favorotism to in the first test and who was brought in to do a job yesterday and did it well, and Davies. I agree that Tuilagi would have been my choice yesterday because Gatland doesn't have an alternative plan to a crash ball 12, however, most commentators felt that before the first test Davies had been the form centre on tour so it is hard to see that picking him in as picking an out of form favorite!

I am totally unhappy about Gatland's lack of a game plan but I think his man management skills are good and generally his team selection, from within his squad, is unbiased and sound. So, I think you are right to annoyed with him but wrong about the picking favorites angle.

BOD is a favourite being picked on reputation. Another was Croft on the bench instead of a real 2nd row. Would have liked to see Davies & Tuilagi in the centre.

ultra wrote:Very good post, worth a reply unlike some of the nonsense written after the test match....no one player is to blame for a loss in what is the epitome of a TEAM game but that TEAM yesterday was a damage limitation, defensive minded selection but for a fine margin it could have worked and we would be 2-0 up, the problem with such a conservative mind set is that it almost always comes down to fine margins.........and in fairness Oz always looked the more threatening outfit and deserved this one to go their way.  Our scrum was a lottery, our line out ok but WHY go to the back with only seconds to go??  our midfield was unimaginative and our lines far too predictable, our backrow effective in defense but plodding when compared to the Oz.......luckily we've got a fantastic kicker. Like England of old really, grind em down and kick the penalties....

The conservative mindset might well be the way the players approach the game and the decisions they are forced to make rather than an imposed game plan strategy from the coaches.

I am sure they are almost more conscious in the second test that they do not want to lose rather than desperate to win, if you see my point...

Please elaborate risky sports. Who are gatlands favourites in your opinion?

I presume Lydiate who should not be touring? Bowe? Who looked pretty lacklustre bar one catch of the ball. Warburton who offered little in attack?

BOD and Davies in the centres? Forming an ineffectual partnership?

Ironically I think Gatland was foolish not to pick certain Welshman - Cuthbert and Faletau.

Tom Youngs and Parling as two lightweights in my opinion really didn't help the scrum.

Was it just a convenient coincidence that when Hibbard came on the scrum was good?

Personally I think Gatland's 23 had hopeless balance. Light weight front five. If you pick a loose head who is criticised left right and centre you support him with a heavier hooker and 2nd row. You also shouldn't continue to undermine a players confidence in a key area. Also don't alert the ref and every man and his dog that you think he is poor in this area because you only reinforce that belief. The ref would have been watching mako closer I expect due to all the scrutiny he has been getting.

The back row with little going forward power. did not generate quick ball. The half backs didn't show any enterprise ( if Farrell did what Sexton did he would be roasted). The centres offered very little. The wingers were given not much to do. Halfpenny is dependable but doesn't have the X factor in attack.

The bench was poorly selected in my opinion.

The Lions lost due to poor decision making and offering very little in attack in my opinion.

maestegmafia wrote:

ultra wrote:Very good post, worth a reply unlike some of the nonsense written after the test match....no one player is to blame for a loss in what is the epitome of a TEAM game but that TEAM yesterday was a damage limitation, defensive minded selection but for a fine margin it could have worked and we would be 2-0 up, the problem with such a conservative mind set is that it almost always comes down to fine margins.........and in fairness Oz always looked the more threatening outfit and deserved this one to go their way.  Our scrum was a lottery, our line out ok but WHY go to the back with only seconds to go??  our midfield was unimaginative and our lines far too predictable, our backrow effective in defense but plodding when compared to the Oz.......luckily we've got a fantastic kicker. Like England of old really, grind em down and kick the penalties....

The conservative mindset might well be the way the players approach the game and the decisions they are forced to make rather than an imposed game plan strategy from the coaches.

I am sure they are almost more conscious in the second test that they do not want to lose rather than desperate to win, if you see my point...

fair enough, I might not be giving enough credit to the opposition forcing us to play in this manner.....I just wonder that when you have a back three on the field such as the one that started yesterday why we play a pack that seems to be one of containment as does the midfield.....hopefully roberts or manu will be able to pries their way into BoD's untouchable jersey and we can start going forward. I genuinely believe that when you have kickers as fantastic as the lions do then the game-plan seems to fit around them rather than vice a versa

Woodward didn't have half the players to choose from in terms of quality that Gatland had and NZ is a far far more difficult place to tour then AUS.... Hd we been travelling to NZ this year we would have been smashed 3 zip and this NZ is no where near the strength of the 05 vintage.

1 win in 23 matches vs the SH with Wales in 5 years. The worst record of all the NH teams. He has played the same way since he started,the same way at Wasps.... His strategy is not difficult for those in the SH to counter.

Inviting the best attacking side in the world to test your defence for 80 mins is madness.
The only way I can liken it is to England at the FIFA World Cup. They get to the KO stages, go 1 up and then panic..... Got to defend the lead, got to defend the lead!!!!! So rather than play their normal game and perhaps go 2 or 3 up they all go behind the ball and defend from their own box... And eventually almost always the attacking teams scores and wins.

Lydiate with the forwards put in a sterling tackling effort.... But that's only half their job... They should be controlling possession, driving up, giving their backs a platform to attack... But if you only pick robotic Ivan drago's... Defend defend defend then you won't win.... And now the Aussies have wind in their sails. 

Next week is a near impossible game to win.

Agree fa0019. No go forward. Also thought Warburton's decision to go for 3 points when the lions won a driving maul penalty was odd. Could have yielded 5-7 points plus a YC if they had carried on. It also been said that the driving maul was underutilised.

The attack seemed to be clueless. No criticism of Howley surprise surprise.

fa0019 wrote:Woodward didn't have half the players to choose from in terms of quality that Gatland had and NZ is a far far more difficult place to tour then AUS.... Hd we been travelling to NZ this year we would have been smashed 3 zip and this NZ is no where near the strength of the 05 vintage.

1 win in 23 matches vs the SH with Wales in 5 years. The worst record of all the NH teams. He has played the same way since he started,the same way at Wasps.... His strategy is not difficult for those in the SH to counter.

Inviting the best attacking side in the world to test your defence for 80 mins is madness.
The only way I can liken it is to England at the FIFA World Cup. They get to the KO stages, go 1 up and then panic..... Got to defend the lead, got to defend the lead!!!!! So rather than play their normal game and perhaps go 2 or 3 up they all go behind the ball and defend from their own box... And eventually almost always the attacking teams scores and wins.

Lydiate with the forwards put in a sterling tackling effort.... But that's only half their job... They should be controlling possession, driving up, giving their backs a platform to attack... But if you only pick robotic Ivan drago's... Defend defend defend then you won't win.... And now the Aussies have wind in their sails. 

Next week is a near impossible game to win.

The crux of your post revolves around this statement and by how much... There is nothing in it..!!! In 23 games vs SH opposition, very very few games have gone in the NHs favour.

Maesteg

Scotland, Ireland and England all have better records vs the 3N sides in gatlands reign then Wales.... And haven't had the luxury of talent gatland has had either.

Most people laugh at Martin Johnsons record with England but give him his dues, with the players he had he actually did ok, had he had the players Wales possessed his record would have been far better and that's saying something.
Is gatland a good coach? He's found a way to beat NH opposition and he should get plaudits for that...it's just when it's applied to the higher intensity, higher tempo, higher skilled players it falls apart.

The strategy is easy for those in the SH to beat.

I don't entirely agree. Like you I don't allocate the blame of losing the game to Vunipola. The decisive element was the Lions being content to sit back and defend a fragile lead as opposed to making inroads up field and building it to make it more defensible. In a way it really follows the proverb that the best defence is a strong offence. Many have argued that this will have left us open to an Aussie counterattack but for one thing I don't think that as likely considering the tackling was far improved and more complete than it was in Brisbane and generally I don't believe a side that's too cautious to attack effectively can be a very successful side.

As regards the scrum, Vunipola could have been subbed for Grant early to spare us a penalty or two but that's the only real impact that will have had imo. In any case, Vunipola improved immensely as the game went on and as I said above I don't consider the scrum to be the reason the Lions lost. That said, I don't share your opinion of Gatland as a poor selector. The side he picked yesterday could and imo should have won. Rather than a poor selector, I see Gatland more as a limited tactician. He has developed a trend of naming lineups capable of grinding out tight and scrappy games, such which are by nature often decided by defences. Though perhaps not his intention, this approach has the side effect of making the players less ambitious in attack, which means they fail to keep the scoreboard ticking and as a result fail to close out games from a winning position. This I see as being part of the fundamental problem with Wales, too often we look to do just enough (win by a point or two) against the SH sides and no more, whereas to beat them and generally to be a world class side you always should be prepared to add to your lead. I can't think of a better way to summarise closing out a game, that which Wales have faced flak for not doing and the Lions are in danger of suffering similarly. Against Oz the current approach isn't sufficient, although I think it can help set the foundations to winning and ought to be improved and amended rather than have the gameplan radically altered. A little more penetration and intent yesterday would have seen the series decided as we speak.

fa0019 wrote:Maesteg

Scotland, Ireland and England all have better records vs the 3N sides in gatlands reign then Wales.... And haven't had the luxury of talent gatland has had either.

Most people laugh at Martin Johnsons record with England but give him his dues, with the players he had he actually did ok, had he had the players Wales possessed his record would have been far better and that's saying something.
Is gatland a good coach? He's found a way to beat NH opposition and he should get plaudits for that...it's just when it's applied to the higher intensity, higher tempo, higher skilled players it falls apart.

The strategy is easy for those in the SH to beat.

Personally I said right from the start I would liked to have seen Joe Schmidt as coach for this tour. Other than him, is there anyone else with the winning record Gatland has...? Its not as though any other NH coaches have a better record.

Besides the point though it wont make us win the next test.

We have struggled when we have replaced starters with substitutes. Injuries are inevitable at this level. But Croft for Warburton lost us the game. We had nothing at the breakdown after Warbs left injured, we also had less forwards trying to protect our ball.

There are players we can bring in and strengthen our bench...

Yup of course an Englishman lost the lions the game. Right maestegmafia? Easy to pin the blame on one or two players......

The welsh coaches and players are of course immune from criticism.

Struggled when replacing starters with substitutes? You mean like in the scrum where Cole and Hibbard helped the dominant lions scrum in the latter part of the match?

This is why I can't take your posts seriously.

Its all well and good protecting the ball but if you do nothing with it......

Knowsit17 good post.

if you do nothing with it..........well said. I love the fact we have these giant welsh automatons charging about on the same side as us, i really do. Adam Jones was awesome when he was on, Dan Cole was brilliant, (at last), when he came on, I don't care, right now, bout england wales scotland etc......just about the nh showing what we're made of, and we're not because we're relying on a fantastically gifted kicking machine.

Said it before and i'll say it again......wales are morphing into 2003 england and this lions team are following the lead....it is wales plus gues
ts after all. but whatevs.....I'll be screaming them on for the final test whoever plays

ultra wrote:if you do nothing with it..........well said. I love the fact we have these giant welsh automatons charging about on the same side as us, i really do. Adam Jones was awesome when he was on, Dan Cole was brilliant, (at last), when he came on, I don't care, right now, bout england wales scotland etc......just about the nh showing what we're made of, and we're not because we're relying on a fantastically gifted kicking machine.

Said it before and i'll say it again......wales are morphing into 2003 england and this lions team are following the lead....it is wales plus gues
ts after all.  but whatevs.....I'll be screaming them on for the final test whoever plays

I completely agree about Cole. He was immense. He had a great game, after adam had thrown it around a lot for the first half we needed Coles fresh legs to take advantage of the Aussies replacements, he, Vuni and Hibbs did a great job.

beshocked wrote:Yup of course an Englishman lost the lions the game. Right maestegmafia? Easy to pin the blame on one or two players......

The welsh coaches and players are of course immune from criticism.

Struggled when replacing starters with substitutes? You mean like in the scrum where Cole and Hibbard helped the dominant lions scrum in the latter part of the match?

This is why I can't take your posts seriously.

Its all well and good protecting the ball but if you do nothing with it......

Knowsit17 good post.

DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TROUBLE READING PEOPLES POSTS ????

I said "We had nothing at the breakdown after Warbs left injured'.... How is that anything to do with an Englishman.... I swear one more attack from you and I will report you. I am sick to death of your attacks at anyone you disagree with. Grow up, stop making up things that you think other posters are inferring and discuss rugby...

No one takes your posts seriously when you attack their character first.

Mr Mafia......you seem to know your rugby, start a post that brings us together.......In my club, when north picked up falou and barreled him forward there wasn't a welshman, an englishman, a scot etc at all, we were all lions!!

Bring it on!! (till the next 6n's when you're all the enemy again!)

Newsilure wrote:

Riskysports wrote:Just wanted to put this in writing

I do not blame Vinapola or a percieved anti Scottish excuse

I do blame Gatland for being a terrible selector and Gatland for having horrible negative tactics and I blame Gatland for picking favourites regardless of form

So who are the favourites that haven't been on form? i assume you are talking about Welsh players but cannot realy see any out of form favorites that he has played amongst them. I assume Adam Jones, AWJ, Halfpenny and North are not ones you are referring to, although perhaps you do? He has been ruthless with other Welsh players that may have been seen as pre tour favorites to start with Youngs being rightly prefered to Hibbard and both Evans and Falatau, rather less rightly not getting in the match day squad. While he has not hesitated to drop Cuthbert and Phillips when he felt more in form players are available. So that just leaves Warburton who most player ratings give as our best forwrd yesterday, Lydiate, who he he didn't show any favorotism to in the first test and who was brought in to do a job yesterday and did it well, and Davies. I agree that Tuilagi would have been my choice yesterday because Gatland doesn't have an alternative plan to a crash ball 12, however, most commentators felt that before the first test Davies had been the form centre on tour so it is hard to see that picking him in as picking an out of form favorite!

I am totally unhappy about Gatland's lack of a game plan but I think his man management skills are good and generally his team selection, from within his squad, is unbiased and sound. So, I think you are right to annoyed with him but wrong about the picking favorites angle.

In answer to who was picked on form

Kearney - great player but out injured and not on form
Bowe - how he come straight in at starter. Been injured too long
Lydiate - in form players that have not had an injury for 12 months should have been selected
Roberts - been very poor for a year yet you could almost bet you house he would have started if not injured, even though been poor in tour
Jenkins - injured and out of form
Maitland - could be a great player but selected as a friend of gatland from home
War burton as captain. Setting a rod for his back as he has been outplayed in the Wales team for a while

And let's not even start on Stevens.


To name some

It is not about nationality it is just he is blind to his friends

maestegmafia wrote:DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TROUBLE READING PEOPLES POSTS ????

I said "We had nothing at the breakdown after Warbs left injured'.... How is that anything to do with an Englishman....

Maes, I can't speak for beshocked, but I have no trouble reading your posts. You wrote

But Croft for Warburton lost us the game. We had nothing at the breakdown after Warbs left injured

I'm not sure why you think that makes no mention of an Englishman.

maestegmafia wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yup of course an Englishman lost the lions the game. Right maestegmafia? Easy to pin the blame on one or two players......

The welsh coaches and players are of course immune from criticism.

Struggled when replacing starters with substitutes? You mean like in the scrum where Cole and Hibbard helped the dominant lions scrum in the latter part of the match?

This is why I can't take your posts seriously.

Its all well and good protecting the ball but if you do nothing with it......

Knowsit17 good post.

DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TROUBLE READING PEOPLES POSTS ????

I said "We had nothing at the breakdown after Warbs left injured'.... How is that anything to do with an Englishman.... I swear one more attack from you and I will report you. I am sick to death of your attacks at anyone you disagree with. Grow up, stop making up things that you think other posters are inferring and discuss rugby...

No one takes your posts seriously when you attack their character first.

Just do it. If the you pulled the trigger too early the mods'll just leave it. These repeated threats just make you sound like a petulant child threatening to run to teacher.


Which I'm sure you're not.

Oh dear here we go again. Another rubbish article from one of the bitter Scots where he and his cronies can jump in and continue slagging off the Wales team. Surely you lot can find something more constructive to do with your life. I've also this funny feeling that soon a string of international results will be coming in and then you will no longer to be able to coat-tail other teams wins versus Wales. Looking forward to that day gentlemen? Because it's going to come sooner or later .

What on earth are you talking about? Pls crank up the coherence-ometer

I still think that if we had played the best available XV in both tests we would be 2-0 up, with two comfortable wins. However, injuries have stopped this from happening. Injuries are part of sport I know - in rugby in particular. But our injuries occurred in the warm up games against mainly second rate opposition while the Australian test players were wrapped in cotton wool. This is not fair preparation for Lions tests. It stops us working out our best players. In future, we either get assurances from the hosts that the clubs play their best players (possibly excepting any game within 7 days of a test) or we just select a small party, train and select a team before we leave and just play tests. Lions ethos gone maybe, but the opposition are already doing that by keeping their test players out of the club teams.

 Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:What on earth are you talking about? Pls crank up the coherence-ometer

I'm talking about you lot coat-tailing Australia's wins over Wales because your own team can't do it. One even coat-tails SA and another is convinced that he is Australian... Also, referring to Gatland as Fatman or Fatland and having a 6 month slagging fest of Mike Phillips is xenophobic. So like I said, find something more constructive to do with your time until the AI's where results could potentially stop you latching on to other team's victories over Wales.

The Saint wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:What on earth are you talking about? Pls crank up the coherence-ometer

I'm talking about you lot coat-tailing Australia's wins over Wales because your own team can't do it. One even coat-tails SA and another is convinced that he is Australian... Also, referring to Gatland as Fatman or Fatland and having a 6 month slagging fest of Mike Phillips is xenophobic. So like I said, find something more constructive to do with your time until the AI's where results could potentially stop you latching on to other team's victories over Wales.

I'm not sure where to even begin with your post saint. Like I said when I get access to a computer tomorrow I'll type out an article on why Gatland has disappointed me.

As for Phillips I don't dislike him because I am Xenophobic, I dislike him because I think he is a poor scrum half. He is a fantastic abrasive rugby player but you couldn't call him a scrum half and keep a straight face. Especially when comparing him to his world class peers like Parra, Genia and Weepu.

Furthermore I always support Wales when they play anyone except Scotland, although some of the Welsh posters on here give IMO the best rugby fans in the world a bad name.

 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

Hammer; what the feck does that ramble mean?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

The Saint wrote:

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:What on earth are you talking about? Pls crank up the coherence-ometer

I'm talking about you lot coat-tailing Australia's wins over Wales because your own team can't do it. One even coat-tails SA and another is convinced that he is Australian... Also, referring to Gatland as Fatman or Fatland and having a 6 month slagging fest of Mike Phillips is xenophobic. So like I said, find something more constructive to do with your time until the AI's where results could potentially stop you latching on to other team's victories over Wales.

I'm not sure where to even begin with your post saint. Like I said when I get access to a computer tomorrow I'll type out an article on why Gatland has disappointed me.

As for Phillips I don't dislike him because I am Xenophobic, I dislike him because I think he is a poor scrum half. He is a fantastic abrasive rugby player but you couldn't call him a scrum half and keep a straight face. Especially when comparing him to his world class peers like Parra, Genia and Weepu.

Furthermore I always support Wales when they play anyone except Scotland, although some of the Welsh posters on here give IMO the best rugby fans in the world a bad name.

I don't have an issue with posters discussing Gatland's tactics, because I agree with some of it. I agree that he's stubborn and defending the lead with 20 minutes to go is poor, but against Australia is suicide. I would rather it would be done in a constructive manner without the need to insult the guy.

I think Phillips is disliked for being Welsh ... Seriously; Having been online for some years on 606 I've witnessed the Scottish contingent resent the Welsh rugby team, particularly players like Phillips and Byrne. Not to mention you constantly blame the ref when you lose to just the Welsh. All of these behaviours have led me to my conclusions.

Ah, that old tosh. Give me a break. Ironic final statement as well, seeing as you moaning Scots have wrecked the forum over the weekend, the exact same thing happened in 2009.

 Saint - People do not dislike Phillips because he's welsh! - the common denominator here is that they dislike him because he has haunted all of the other home nations over the past 5 years - often scoring critical and crucial trys in the process. It's quite easy to understand actually.

Actually I hate Phillips because my wife thinks he's gorgeous. I don't see it myself. He looks like knob  

RubyGuby wrote: 

HammerofThunor wrote:

RubyGuby wrote: Good points Scarpia, all of them valid and interesting

I would have for arrogant and baseless personally but same thing basically

Hammer; what the feck does that ramble mean?

Saying that the Lions would have both games comfortably without the injuries is arrogant and baseless (IMO)

Scarpia wrote:I still think that if we had played the best available XV in both tests we would be 2-0 up, with two comfortable wins. However, injuries have stopped this from happening. Injuries are part of sport I know - in rugby in particular. But our injuries occurred in the warm up games against mainly second rate opposition while the Australian test players were wrapped in cotton wool. This is not fair preparation for Lions tests. It stops us working out our best players. In future, we either get assurances from the hosts that the clubs play their best players (possibly excepting any game within 7 days of a test) or we just select a small party, train and select a team before we leave and just play tests. Lions ethos gone maybe, but the opposition are already doing that by keeping their test players out of the club teams.

Or just forget the Lions (keeping a dinosaur alive by force feeding it dogfood) and just knuckle down to each Nation getting its own individual shot at Australia/New Zealand/South Africa in a three game series.  Four Nations, four years, one cycle - independent concerns, independent player development, no conflicts of interest and true International rugby.  I know that's happening now already but cut out The Lions and there is an extra year when such series for Individual nations can be arranged.

?

If the Lions needs watering down to remain valid, and I think it probably does - then perhaps people should just let it go gracefully and package it up nicely for the museums and the archival nostalgia of yesteryear sport.  Afterall - the Five Nations ended when we let them damn Italians in!!!!

 Hammer - He is a handsome fella and my wife thinks the same - I reassure myself in the knowledge that he has the brain of a frozen Pea

RubyGuby wrote: Hammer - He is a handsome fella and my wife thinks the same - I reassure myself in the knowledge that he has the brain of a frozen Pea

 

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:the best rugby fans in the world a bad name.

Thanks Radge. Sometimes I feel like I'm holding the fort on my own though   

This thread makes for 'interesting' reading

All For One and One... (hang on where's everybody gone?) 

 Cyril - how we gonna beat them damn Aussies next week mate ?

I've no idea, Ruby. To be honest, I think the chance is gone now. The Aussies will continue to get better and I don't think the Lions have it in them to play the right way to beat them. It really should be 2-0 to the Aussies and game over already. We have no attacking nous or guile about our play. It's just as well Halfpenny is kicking brilliantly or we could be embarrassed.

I think the Lions will do well to get within 10 next week

Sorry for the pessismism but I just can't see a Lions win  

.....for all........ how is george north btw? anyone heard?

Cyril wrote:I've no idea, Ruby. To be honest, I think the chance is gone now. The Aussies will continue to get better and I don't think the Lions have it in them to play the right way to beat them. It really should be 2-0 to the Aussies and game over already. We have no attacking nous or guile about our play. It's just as well Halfpenny is kicking brilliantly or we could be embarrassed.

I think the Lions will do well to get within 10 next week

Sorry for the pessismism but I just can't see a Lions win  

Cyril, that's he first proper rugby opinion post I've read from you! Congrats!

Seriously though, you're alright these days. A great transformation. Long may it last.

Griff, you're making me  

Until Scotland start beating other Home Nations with regularity, and/or the lions are not coached/selected by one of the other Home Nations coaches, Scotland are on a hiding to nothing. Its pushing it to blame anyone other than the SRU, who ought to put their own house in order.

That said, it is just a real shame that great players who fit the bill, such as Grant, are not given a crack because they aren't trusted by the coach. Which would in turn suggest that their selection was political in the first place. But the SRU should be assuming responsibility for Grants treatment in a very real way, and treating this as year zero.

Dean Ryan is dropping truth-bombs on this matter in the guardian today. To echo Risky and IanBru, its just a real pity that Gatland hasn't allowed the team to develop their own style, and given players time to develop.

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually I hate Phillips because my wife thinks he's gorgeous. I don't see it myself. He looks like knob  

I have the same problem with Halfpenny. I probably would have let it go if he'd nailed the kick to win the series though.

robbo277 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Actually I hate Phillips because my wife thinks he's gorgeous. I don't see it myself. He looks like knob  

I have the same problem with Halfpenny. I probably would have let it go if he'd nailed the kick to win the series though.

Nah, he looks like a twelve year old with a false beard. She's not into that.